The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Marcus L. Rowland. RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diana: Warrior Princess[edit]

Diana: Warrior Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a commercial product has had only one source for the last 15 years. That source (Pyramid) is not WP:INDEPENDENT as it is published by the product's manufacturer / distributor, Steve Jackson Games. A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) finds no further RS. If significant RS exist in more obscure repositories and can be demonstrated, I will be happy to withdraw this nomination. Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of Nom the nominator has incorrectly asserted that the Pyramd review is not WP:INDEPENDENT as it is published by the product's manufacturer / distributor, Steve Jackson Games. While this mistake is understandable, the actual sequence is that (1) the game was initially published in 2004 by Heliograph, Inc.; (2) it was then reviewed by Pyramid, in 2004; (3) it was re-issued by the author in 2007, distributed by Steve Jackson Games (the publisher of Pyramid) among other venues. The review is therefore an independent as well as reliable source, per NBOOK; along with this review by Timothy Brannan, the GNG is satisfied and the Nom can, in good conscience, withdraw this nomination. Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate you clarifying the sequence of events in respect of Pyramid and agree with your conclusion in that regard. Unfortunately, however, the other source you point out - a review by "Timothy B." in the purchaser reviews section of the ecommerce site "dmsguild.com" - is not a WP:RS (we don't, for instance, count purchaser reviews at amazon.com, newegg.com, etc. as RS either). I will, therefore, have to maintain my nomination to delete. I appreciate your input and feedback, however. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford] (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your hesitation, but Brannan is an established reviewer], per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only know that the ecommerce review site review is by "Timothy B.", I don't know his last name is Brannan and there doesn't seem to be anything there establishing that, and even if it is the same person as Timothy Brannan I see no RS establishing him as an expert. Prolific writing does not establish someone as an expert for our purposes. Unfortunately, the purchaser reviews sections on ecommerce sites like dmsguild.com and amazon.com are not RS. Chetsford (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem a fine point, but the review on dmsguild is not a "purchaser" review but rather a "featured reviewer" review. The identity of the reviewer (Timothy Brannan) is documented here; I know the Nom has difficulty finding this information himself. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seems to be similar to the "Verified Purchaser" icon on Amazon, differentiating them from "Purchaser." I still would maintain that buyer reviews on ecommerce sites are not RS, however. We may have to agree to disagree on this one - thanks! Chetsford (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, it is the qualifications and reputation of the reviewer, and not the platform, that determine the reliability of self-published reviews. If Ken Hite were shown to leave an RPG review on Amazon, that would be a RS, but not if you or I did so. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, an RS has to establish the author is a SPS, not individual WP editors by declaration. An RS would have to say "Timothy B." is an expert on roleplay games. We can't simply declare that, in our opinion, he is an expert or - because he's published 12 reviews on "rpg.net" "Timothy B." has crossed the expert threshold. "Timothy B.'s" purchaser review on an ecommerce site is not RS. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that Timothy Brannan] is reliable as a reviewer on the basis of the dmsguide reviews, but based on his body of work. The claim that "An RS would have to say that "Ken Hite is an expert on roleplaying games" for Ken Hite's self-published reviews to count as RS is, ahem, unsupported by policy. What matters is the body of work and the respect in which it is held. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RS would have to say he is respected to qualify under SPS, not a WP editor by counting the number of articles he's written on "rpg.net" and independently arriving at that conclusion. "Timothy B.'s" purchaser review on an ecommerce site is not RS. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It seems that the nominator may have misinterpeted some of the sources initially in the article, but with Newimpartial's helpful clarification it is clear that this article has sufficient (albeit scant) reliable sourcing to support notability. The article is far from WP:Featured Article but it meets our guidelines for inclusion. Michepman (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you've misunderstood the discussion. "Some of the sources" (plural) imagines that there are multiple sources. The sources in the article are one (1). I agree the one source in the article, on second reading, is RS; I don't agree that a single source constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Another commenter has proposed that a product buyer review on an e-commerce site can be used as another source, a point to which I will have to agree to disagree (disagreement is not a synonym for misinterpretation). Chetsford (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Chetsford, sometimes disagreement is a synonym for misinterpretation. Reliability of SPS is determined by the standing of the author, not the platform. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There seems to be general agreement above that there is at least one RS for this article, the one currently cited in it. While that is not enough by Wikipedia standards to justify keeping a standalone article, it is quite enough - if no further suitable sources are identified - to justify a selective merge to Marcus L. Rowland, the article on the author, which currently lists Diana: Warrior Princess among his works but gives no further detail. The verified information in the article would easily justify an extra paragraph of a few sentences there. PWilkinson (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Marcus L. Rowland per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PRESERVE applies to content within the article, not the existence of the article. Articles have to demonstrate WP:N through WP:SIGCOV. A review on an ecommerce site is not SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do recognize a valid Merge argument when you see one, don't you, Chetsford? Your copypasta suggests otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial -- I think that seems needlessly harsh. While I personally think this article should be kept, I think it is fair to say that Chetsford, who has been on Wikipedia for over 30 months, is familiar with valid Merge arguments. Just because they disagree with us doesn't mean that they don't recognize valid arguments -- it just means that they disagree on this one. Michepman (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:SIGCOV isn't a valid argument against a Merge !vote. I hope we can agree on that, at least. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My response was to the "Keep" portion of the !vote, not the "or Merge" portion. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Thank you for your kind and measured reply. Chetsford (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.